Difference between revisions of "The Machinery of Freedom/animated lecture"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(more or less done analyzing his arguments) |
(one more thing) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
** national defense | ** national defense | ||
* [[Anti-governmentism/private is better|Where the same thing can be done either by government or privately, private is usually better.]] ([[/transcription#3|¶3]] [[/transcription#16|¶16]] [[/transcription#21|¶23]] [[/transcription#30|¶30]]) | * [[Anti-governmentism/private is better|Where the same thing can be done either by government or privately, private is usually better.]] ([[/transcription#3|¶3]] [[/transcription#16|¶16]] [[/transcription#21|¶23]] [[/transcription#30|¶30]]) | ||
| − | ** Private markets produce better products than socialist systems do -- "we expect markets to produce better cars than socialist systems". | + | ** Private markets produce better products than socialist systems do -- "we expect markets to produce better cars than socialist systems". ([[/transcription#16|¶16]]) |
*** Objection: it's not clear what definition of "{{l/ip|socialism}}" he's using here. | *** Objection: it's not clear what definition of "{{l/ip|socialism}}" he's using here. | ||
**** Europe (especially Sweden) is often called "socialist", but they produce pretty good cars. | **** Europe (especially Sweden) is often called "socialist", but they produce pretty good cars. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*** response: For the most part, Friedman does support his conclusions with reasoning. | *** response: For the most part, Friedman does support his conclusions with reasoning. | ||
**** objection: It just needs to be understood that this reasoning is necessary. We can't just ''assume'' that the private organizations will do better than government because they are private organizations. | **** objection: It just needs to be understood that this reasoning is necessary. We can't just ''assume'' that the private organizations will do better than government because they are private organizations. | ||
| + | ** (DF[[/transcription#21|¶23]]) on a free market, your choice affects what you get -- whereas in a democracy, your choice has vanishingly small effect. | ||
* (DF's main argument) The basic functions of government can be handled privately: | * (DF's main argument) The basic functions of government can be handled privately: | ||
** '''police''' (enforcing laws) | ** '''police''' (enforcing laws) | ||
Revision as of 17:53, 23 December 2014
Claims
- The term "liberalism" was stolen by the enemies of liberalism; modern libertarians are the true liberals. (¶1)
- objection: Liberalism was about doing away with centralized control of markets; modern liberals are against that too -- they're just willing to admit that corporate control is just as bad as government control, and that well-designed government regulation can decrease centralization overall.
- Libertarianism (formerly called liberalism) is the philosophy that supports small government and free markets. (¶1)
- Libertarianism holds that the function of government is to do a few things that can't be done by individuals associating voluntarily in private markets: (¶2)
- police
- courts
- national defense
- Where the same thing can be done either by government or privately, private is usually better. (¶3 ¶16 ¶23 ¶30)
- Private markets produce better products than socialist systems do -- "we expect markets to produce better cars than socialist systems". (¶16)
- Objection: it's not clear what definition of "socialism" he's using here.
- Europe (especially Sweden) is often called "socialist", but they produce pretty good cars.
- Objection: it's not clear what definition of "socialism" he's using here.
- objection: This ignores the fact that there are some things government does better and private organizations do worse. While it may be that the REA/AA scheme will in fact do better than government, we can't assume that this will be so just because "private is better".
- response: For the most part, Friedman does support his conclusions with reasoning.
- objection: It just needs to be understood that this reasoning is necessary. We can't just assume that the private organizations will do better than government because they are private organizations.
- response: For the most part, Friedman does support his conclusions with reasoning.
- (DF¶23) on a free market, your choice affects what you get -- whereas in a democracy, your choice has vanishingly small effect.
- Private markets produce better products than socialist systems do -- "we expect markets to produce better cars than socialist systems". (¶16)
- (DF's main argument) The basic functions of government can be handled privately:
- police (enforcing laws)
- individuals hire private firms (rights enforcement agencies - REAs) to protect their rights and settle their disputes with other individual
- objection (DF¶6): conflict between REAs
- objection detail (DF¶7): REAs will use violence to settle their disputes
- response (DF¶8): violence is expensive -- REAs are not likely to use it to settle conflicts because in the long term it's a losing proposition with uneven results
- objection (W): What if an REA is unreasonable?
- response (DF¶8): violence is expensive -- REAs are not likely to use it to settle conflicts because in the long term it's a losing proposition with uneven results
- response (DF¶9¶13): REAs will hire arbitration agencies (AAs) to settle their disputes with other REAs
- objection detail (DF¶7): REAs will use violence to settle their disputes
- objection (DF¶6): conflict between REAs
- individuals hire private firms (rights enforcement agencies - REAs) to protect their rights and settle their disputes with other individual
- courts (making laws) - handled by arbitration agencies (AAs)
- objection (DF¶11): who will enforce the use of AAs and adherence to their decisions?
- response (DF¶11): the discipline of constant dealings
- objection (W): ...which requires a highly stable, non-transient society -- which we don't have now, and which there is no reason to expect would be delivered by this system
- response (DF¶11): the discipline of constant dealings
- objection (DF¶17,W): What if two REAs can't agree on an arbiter? (e.g. what if one REA's customers prefer a death penalty, while another REA's customers are opposed?)
- response (DF¶18): an argument that has something to do with raising prices in response to demand and/or buying the acquiescence of the other and/or its customers. This doesn't really answer the question.
- objection (W): To the extent that the argument is relevant, however, it seems to depend on everyone having similar amounts of money -- otherwise a view can prevail because of the holder's wealth rather than the degree of their conviction that they are right.
- response (DF¶18): an argument that has something to do with raising prices in response to demand and/or buying the acquiescence of the other and/or its customers. This doesn't really answer the question.
- objection (DF¶11): who will enforce the use of AAs and adherence to their decisions?
national defense(not covered; conceded that privatizing this is an easier problem to solve)
- police (enforcing laws)
- objection (DF(¶13): Under this system, different sets of people/entities will operate under different sets of rules. Isn't that unfair?
- response (DF(¶13)): Actually it's an improvement, because:
- we already live under a system where rules vary (by state, munucipality, etc). (¶13)
- any rules needed for any given interaction can be worked out non-coercively via this method (¶15)
- rules will be more closely tailored to the needs of the people ruled by them -- people will only get the rules they want (¶20)
- response (DF(¶13)): Actually it's an improvement, because:
Pages
- /transcription: a complete transcription of the lecture in the video